Firstly, it must be identified that to tbe best of my knowledge, and I may be wrong, only two witnesses mention fat running off and being collected to be poured back onto an open-air cremation at Auschwitz. Thus, the question is not exactly central to the entire corpus of witness testimony describing open-air cremations either at Auschwitz or other camps, or with Sonderkommando 1005.

Second, there is in principle nothing scientifically implausible about fat running out of bodies in a mass cremation pit or on a pyre - at a certain point of the cremation only.

That is to say, anyone who has ever cooked meat on a stove, in an oven or on a barbecue knows that it is possible to heat meat to beyond 200 degrees Celsius without it automatically catching fire, and that fat WILL run out of the meat in large quantities.

Now multiply that Sunday roast of 4lb weight by 10,000 times.

Open-air cremation relied on wood fires ignited by petrol. Neither fuel produces an instant incineration temperature but must be allowd to build up to a cremation heat. In the *early* stages of the fire building, fat could run off without being immediately ignited by the fire.

Within a short space of time, this would no longer be so, the fat that remained in the bodies would combust due to the sheer heat of the fire. Pouring run-off fat back onto the fire at an early stage would stoke it and ensure that it built to the required level - more than 600 degrees Celsius - for cremation to ensue, as opposed to a gigantic long-pig barbecue.

So what you are saying is that fat was collected from the partially incinerated corpses, most of which would have been emaciated. This would involve the careful monitoring of the fire’s temperature. The fat was collected, god knows how, and returned to the fire. The fat yields were likely to be negligible; the collectable percentage of these yields even more minimal and the effort involved in this operation would be considerable. By removing fat from corpses you are simply removing a combustible agent from the process and returning it at a later point; you are not increasing fuel value by a single percent. The fat would burn if you just left it on the fire. All a bit pointless don’t you think? Do you guys really expect people to believe this?

>So what you are saying is that fat was collected from the partially incinerated corpses, most of >which would have been emaciated.

Wrong, the Jews from Hungary in the spring and summer of 1944 were not emaciated.

>This would involve the careful monitoring of the fire’s temperature. The fat was collected, god >knows how, and returned to the fire. The fat yields were likely to be negligible; the collectable >percentage of these yields even more minimal and the effort involved in this operation would >be considerable.

Say you. What are your quantity estimates based on?

>By removing fat from corpses you are simply removing a combustible agent from the process >and returning it at a later point; you are not increasing fuel value by a single percent. The fat >would burn if you just left it on the fire.

Yeah, but pouring the collected fat onto the flames might speed up the building of incineration heat required, which would otherwise take somewhat longer, as Nick explained.

>All a bit pointless don’t you think?

Not if you’re interested in bringing the fire to the highest temperature within the shortest possible time. You can achieve that by pouring either external liquid fuel or body fat onto the fire. The latter option is more economical.

>Do you guys really expect people to believe this?

What you wish to believe or not is your problem alone. But if you doubt a procedure described by several witnesses independently of each other without being able to demonstrate that it was not physically possible and the witnesses must therefore have been wrong about some detail, your doubt is not a reasonable one.

“Wrong, the Jews from Hungary in the spring and summer of 1944 were not emaciated”

So you know the fat to muscle ratios of the people involved then do you? People were leaner in this period and were, no doubt even more lean because of their circumstances. The potential fat yield is further derogated by the distribution of human fat as compared to the distribution of fat on cows and pigs. Even if fat could be drained from human bodies the yields would be negligible.

“Yeah, but pouring the collected fat onto the flames might speed up the building of incineration heat required, which would otherwise take somewhat longer, as Nick explained”

It might speed it up if you weren’t adding it to a fire that’s temperature potential had been lowered by the fuel removal. Why not just remove some of the wood and return it to the fire at a later point?

“without being able to demonstrate that it was not physically possible and the witnesses must therefore have been wrong about some detail….. your doubt is not a reasonable one”

I couldn’t explain the metallurgy behind making a steel bar but I know that if I got hit by one it would hurt. I also know that the claim that removing a combustible material from a fire and returning it an hour or so later doesn’t increase the incineration potential of your combined fuel resource.

“Do you people ever do any scientific research to back up your denials?”

Why did they need to carry out this bizarre operation anyway? According to key holocaust witness Konrad Morgen (cited by Sergey, I believe) the process unfolded thus;

"By means of a special process which Wirth had invented, they were burned in the open air without the use of fuel" K Morgen

Which of your "eyewitnesses" should we believe, the ones who claim that mass cremations were achieved by a dubious process involving vats of human fat or the eyewitness who says that the Nazis could cremate without fuel?

Voxceltica apparently didn't learn anything about the fallacy of "refuting hearsay" from this blog, even though it has been pointed out many times.

Morgen was not an eyewitness to this process. He has been told about it by Wirth. He has been an eyewitness to the act of telling, not to the events told about.

Either Wirth bragged about "no fuel", or he said something about "almost no fuel", which transformed years later into "no fuel" in Morgen's testimony. Or Morgen simply misunderstood or misremembered what was said. This doesn't impeach his testimony in the least, of course.

What is so hard to understand here? But perhaps those comprehension problems, pointed out by me earlier, are at work? After all, you "racialists" are not known to be very bright.

“Either Wirth bragged about "no fuel", or he said something about "almost no fuel", which transformed years later into "no fuel"

Talk about creative interpretation! Are you fucking nuts or something? Why don’t you concentrate on explaining how bodies were incinerated with no fuel? You can even speculate about your invented scenario in which th bodies were incinerated with “almost” no fuel. I’d be really interested to find out about “almost no fuel” incinerations. Nazi science might be able to help us solve the energy crisis.

“This doesn't impeach his testimony in the least, of course”

Of course it does. How can this concluding absurdity not impeach his testimony?

“Or Morgen simply misunderstood or misremembered what was said”

And this, of course, would call into question the general validity of his evidence. How can we tell what parts of his evidence were based on “misunderstandings” and “misremembering” and which parts weren’t?

“After all, you "racialists" are known not to be very bright”

I think a demonstration of the above might be more convincing than an assertion.

So when the premise fits the conclusion it becomes “valuable” evidence

“but allowance for additional distortion should be made”

On the other hand, when the premise doesn’t fit the conclusion it’s attributable to “distortion” Your definition of distortion being; failure to correspond to your preconceptions. There’s a starring spot waiting for you in comedy clubs all over Britain Sergey.

>“Wrong, the Jews from Hungary in the spring and summer of 1944 were not emaciated”

>So you know the fat to muscle ratios of the people involved then do you?

Do I have to? Yours is the claim that they were emaciated and thus would have no fat.

>People were leaner in this period and were, no doubt even more lean because of their >circumstances. The potential fat yield is further derogated by the distribution of human fat as >compared to the distribution of fat on cows and pigs. Even if fat could be drained from human >bodies the yields would be negligible.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

“Yeah, but pouring the collected fat onto the flames might speed up the building of incineration heat required, which would otherwise take somewhat longer, as Nick explained”

>It might speed it up if you weren’t adding it to a fire that’s temperature potential had been >lowered by the fuel removal. Why not just remove some of the wood and return it to the fire at >a later point?

Why would it not be better to remove some of the fat and return it to the fire at a later point?

>“without being able to demonstrate that it was not physically possible and the witnesses must >therefore have been wrong about some detail….. your doubt is not a reasonable one”

>I couldn’t explain the metallurgy behind making a steel bar but I know that if I got hit by one it >would hurt. I also know that the claim that removing a combustible material from a fire and >returning it an hour or so later doesn’t increase the incineration potential of your combined fuel >resource.

Didn’t we just agree that this is not about the overall incineration potential, but about the best place and time to apply a part of that potential?

>“Do you people ever do any scientific research to back up your denials?”

So you are admitting that you don’t have any scientific evidence but you think that that’s ok because you are not “denying” anything?

You are denying my assertion that fat drainage from corpses on an open fire is virtually impossible and entirely impractical. A denial you now admit you cannot back up with scientific evidence. Thanks!

“Why would it not be better to remove some of the fat and return it to the fire at a later point?”

Because the fat would be colder when it was reapplied to the fire than it was when it was taken from the fire. You could, of course, keep the oil simmering in a cauldron, but that would require additional fuel for the cauldron fires. Why can’t you just admit that this particular tale is apocryphal?

>So you are admitting that you don’t have any scientific evidence but you think that that’s ok >because you are not “denying” anything?

No, I’m saying that, as I’m not denying historical facts like you are, the question for “scientific research”, in the context in which it was asked by Xcalibur, doesn’t arise in my case.

>You are denying my assertion that fat drainage from corpses on an open fire is virtually >impossible and entirely impractical. A denial you now admit you cannot back up with scientific >evidence. Thanks!

Wishful thinking is also thinking and often the only thinking that “Revisionists” are capable of. Silly word games aside, the score is this: you have claimed that “fat drainage from corpses on an open fire is virtually impossible and entirely impractical”, but you have not proven it. And as the claims is yours, so is the burden of proof.

>“Why would it not be better to remove some of the fat and return it to the fire at a later >point?”

>Because the fat would be colder when it was reapplied to the fire than it was when it was >taken from the fire.

How much colder would that be if it was reapplied immediately, and how would that affect its combustion properties, if at all? You should also answer the question in its context: what would be “worse” about fat and “better” about wood as an agent to speed up the building of incineration heat required, thus making wood seem the more appropriate choice?

>You could, of course, keep the oil simmering in a cauldron, but that would require additional >fuel for the cauldron fires.

Not if you reapplied it immediately after collection, assuming that the temperature of the fat even mattered.

“No, I’m saying that, as I’m not denying historical facts like you are”

Oh! I see, “historical” facts don’t require scientific verification?

“Wishful thinking is also thinking and often the only thinking that “Revisionists” are capable of”

So when I asked you if you have any scientific research to back up your assertions and you responded by admitting that you didn’t, that was somehow “wishful thinking” on my part? It looks quite black and white in your original post Roberto, but I’m sure I’m just imagining it.

“How much colder would that be if it was reapplied immediately, and how would that affect its combustion properties, if at all?”

Firstly you would have the, not inconsiderable, problem of collecting it in sufficient quantities.

Your scenario: Bodies placed on wood pyre, gasoline applied, fire ignited, bodies reach a certain temperature at which point all human fat pours steadily from the body and is collected. Collection can be done within a timescale that precludes any significant cooling of the fat, fat reapplied, massive combustion, end.

My scenario: Bodies placed on wooden pyre, gasoline applied, fire ignited, bodies reach a certain temperature at which point bodies begin to combust, skin ruptures, fat hisses and spits from some of the more corpulent corpses, some of the fat ignites, some runs out, other bodies burn more slowly, short of placing the corpses in a giant steel griddle, no method of fat collection proves possible. Found any giant steel frying pans in Auschwitz lately have they?

Secondly, if you are going to reapply it immediately there is scant advantage in removing it in the first place.

The bodies are just as burnt and gone whatever anyone can hypothesise about how they were burnt. The cremation of the bodies being a historical fact, the precise details of how this occurred are of secondary interest to most people.

"So when I asked you if you have any scientific research to back up your assertions and you responded by admitting that you didn’t, that was somehow “wishful thinking” on my part? It looks quite black and white in your original post Roberto, but I’m sure I’m just imagining it".

No, idiot, yours is the burden of proof on this. At the moment, all you have is argumentum ad ignorantium, argument from personal incredulity. There is nothing in the physics of thermodynamics that precludes what was described from having taken place.

"Firstly you would have the, not inconsiderable, problem of collecting it in sufficient quantities."

Let's see now. 1000 bodies would contain, using human averages, several tons of fat. The bodies under discussion here were mostly new arrivals who would not have been emaciated. The average human today has 15lbs of fat on them, even if you drop that by a third to account for the era and for children, we're talking up to 5000lb of human fat inside 1000 bodies.

Even if 99% of the fat remained inside the bodies, or ran off and could not be caught, but 1% could be, you're talking about many tens of pounds of fat. Fat has a BTU of 20,000 per pound, which uis close to that of petrol. So even if only 20lb could be captured, this is the equivalent of several gallons of petrol.

All the witness descriptions mention human fat being added in conjunction with more petrol, more wood, and a general stoking. The bodies weren't simply basted like a gigantic turkey, any more than a turkey is cooked simply by basting it. But the turkey cooks faster when it's basted, and in this method of mass cremation, the bodies burn faster if you have some slave labourer Sonderkommandos scoop up a few ladlefuls of fat and pour it back on.

"Your scenario: Bodies placed on wood pyre, gasoline applied, fire ignited, bodies reach a certain temperature at which point all human fat pours steadily from the body and is collected. Collection can be done within a timescale that precludes any significant cooling of the fat, fat reapplied, massive combustion, end."

Have you ever poured extra oil onto a fry-up? Even if it's cold, the oil heats up quickly enough. In this instance, the fat that had run off would not be cold, would it? The heat of the pyre, if high enough to cause fat to run off, would be high enough to heat the same fat, scooped back up after a matter of minutes, back up.

"My scenario: Bodies placed on wooden pyre, gasoline applied, fire ignited, bodies reach a certain temperature at which point bodies begin to combust, skin ruptures, fat hisses and spits from some of the more corpulent corpses, some of the fat ignites, some runs out, other bodies burn more slowly, short of placing the corpses in a giant steel griddle, no method of fat collection proves possible. Found any giant steel frying pans in Auschwitz lately have they?"

No need for steel anything, dug channels were used.

"Secondly, if you are going to reapply it immediately there is scant advantage in removing it in the first place."

Idiot, the fat runs off of its own accord. Why not scoop some up and save it from sinking into the earth? You can figure a far larger percentage went completely to waste.

"No, just trying to save you from further embarrassment."

In our experience, it's deniers who embarrass first.

Did you flunk physics in your Highers, or did your brain rot after school?

“The bodies are just as burnt and gone whatever anyone can hypothesise about how they were burnt. The cremation of the bodies being a historical fact”

Factual status is based on evidence. We are discussing that evidence. You’re not quite grasping that are you?

“No, idiot, yours is the burden of proof on this”

I didn’t set up a blog that boldly demands, “What part of the word genocide do you not understand?” That legend puts the burden of proof on you. A burden you seem woefully ill equipped to shoulder Nick.

"At the moment, all you have is argumentum ad ignorantium, argument from personal incredulity”

And that sounds a lot like argumentum ad hominem. My incredulity is based on my perceptions of obvious practical problems posed by the proposed operation. Problems which to me seem to be insurmountable.

“There is nothing in the physics of thermodynamics that precludes what was described from having taken place”

We are not dealing with laws of thermodynamics. We are dealing with the pragmatic application of these laws.

Have you ever poured extra oil onto a fry-up?

I’ve never had a fry up that involved the direct application of foodstuffs onto burning wood. A better experiment would involve placing rashers of bacon on a wood fire. If you do this I think you will find that either your fat combusts without melting or melts and is consumed in the flames and embers of the fire.

“The heat of the pyre, if high enough to cause fat to run off, would be high enough to heat the same fat, scooped back up after a matter of minutes, back up”

So you are telling me that the fat first liquefied and flowed through a blazing wood fire, ran into a trench and flowed down the trench into collection vessels. The fat is then thrown back onto the fire. The fat can’t be any hotter than it was when it first melted and may, in fact be a bit cooler, why does the fat not once more, simply flow through the blazing fire and run into the trench?

“Did you flunk physics in your Highers, or did your brain rot after school?”

I think the words “petty” and “immature” might be applicable to your closing statement.

"Factual status is based on evidence. We are discussing that evidence. You’re not quite grasping that are you?"

No, it would be you that isn't quite grasping that the technical detail of whether fat was poured over bodies stands *subordinate* to the larger body of evidence concerning the historical fact of mass cremation at Birkenau.

This is the evidentiary hierarchy:

a) many witnesses testify to these cremations in open-air pits.b) very many fewer of them testify to pouring burning fat back on.

Some possible interpretations

a) the witnesses who so testify exaggerated, so you should dismiss this part of their evidence (normal court-room practice).

b) the witnesses exaggerated on this point, the rest of their evidence must be dismissed, but this doesn't dismiss all the other witnesses who didn't say anything (also normal court room practice)

c) because a few witnesses seem to have exaggerated on a particular point of detail, ALL the witnesses must be lying (denier logic, aka falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)

d) the claims made by the witnesses are actually true, because they conform to a specific set of circumstances that could easily be achieved in the process of cremation, but which did not apply throughout the entire process.

Which is your preferred explanation?

"I didn’t set up a blog that boldly demands, “What part of the word genocide do you not understand?” That legend puts the burden of proof on you."

No, it doesn't. Burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. YOU came along asking about this. WE weren't discussing human fat-pouring when you came along, it was you that brought it up. However hard you pretend otherwise, it's your claim. Doesn't matter that the claim was couched in the form of a faux-query as if a blog is some kind of Agony Aunt column, which we're not. Your claim, your burden of proof. I haven't seen very much evidence outlined from you except 'I don't see how'.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that we're here to 'defend' something in its entirety, at any time of night or day. Sorry, that's not how either history or science works, that's not how we work.

"A burden you seem woefully ill equipped to shoulder Nick."

Really? Then how come you ignored half of my previous comment?

"And that sounds a lot like argumentum ad hominem."

OOOH! AD HOM! Nope, pointing out that your argument is based on personal incredulity is pointing out the fallacy of your logic.

"My incredulity is based on my perceptions of obvious practical problems posed by the proposed operation. Problems which to me seem to be insurmountable."

It's that word 'seem'. Saying it ain't so don't make it so. You're still stuck on the ad ignorantium level.

"We are not dealing with laws of thermodynamics. We are dealing with the pragmatic application of these laws."

Au contraire, if the laws of thermodynamics interacting with human anatomy militated against the outflow of human fat from a pile of corpses, then I'd dismiss the evidence too. But these laws, combined with the human anatomy, do militate strongly *towards* human fat flowing out of the pile of bodies, in considerable quantities.

That leaves only where the fat might flow to, in what quantities, and whether it could be captured in a receptacle so that some part of the fat could be returned to the blaze, at a certain stage of the fire.

I've already specificed that probably up to 99% of the fat *couldn't* escape to a receptacle, but that if even 1% *could*, then it was worth having a stoker ladle the fat back on.

"I’ve never had a fry up that involved the direct application of foodstuffs onto burning wood. A better experiment would involve placing rashers of bacon on a wood fire. If you do this I think you will find that either your fat combusts without melting or melts and is consumed in the flames and embers of the fire."

Try throwing the whole pig on. No, scratch that, try sandwiching a herd of pigs between layers of wood in a very long trench.

If this were some kind of Viking funeral pyre for one, or even a deux, then it would *not* have been worth the effort. Not enough fat would have escaped anywhere to be collected. But this situation was fundamentally different. It was a mass cremation.

"So you are telling me that the fat first liquefied and flowed through a blazing wood fire, ran into a trench and flowed down the trench into collection vessels. The fat is then thrown back onto the fire. The fat can’t be any hotter than it was when it first melted and may, in fact be a bit cooler, why does the fat not once more, simply flow through the blazing fire and run into the trench?"

Weeell, that would be up to the aim of the person ladling the fat back on, and the length of the ladle used - and they were apparently long. If you have a human body that is 1.5-1.8m long, and fat runs out from the edges - either the flanks of the last bodies in the row, or from the legs and shoulders either side - then you can easily, with an implement 1m long, ladle the fat back into the *middle* of the body and the fire. I don't know about you, but my presumption would be that most of the fat would pool on the body, and soon enough ignite, with some no doubt dribbling off the edges of the pile and going to waste.

Really? You think? I thought they were pretty reasonable questions to ask of someone who's not put forward a single scientific fact so far or bothered to actually comprehend the situation under discussion.

For someone who came here looking for a fight to begin with, you're remarkably wussy about taking your verbal lumps. Might I suggest you fuck off somewhere else that is more to your genteel tastes? Because we've zero tolerance for trolls and stupid deniers, and you seem to embody both quite well.

Historical facts are based on scientific verification, my friend. Historiography is a science verifying the eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence regarding a certain event and reconstructing that event based on such verification. That’s what this science has been doing in regard to any event in history, and the Nazi genocide of the Jews has not been treated differently from any other – except perhaps that it has been investigated more thoroughly than many other historical events or phenomena.

>“Wishful thinking is also thinking and often the only thinking that “Revisionists” are capable of”

>So when I asked you if you have any scientific research to back up your assertions and you >responded by admitting that you didn’t,

Xcalibur asked you: “Do you people ever do any scientific research to back up your denials?”

You messed up by replying:

>Do you have any scientific research to back up yours?

“Yours”, in this context, means “your denial”, and the term “denial”, as used by Xcalibur, means denial of certain historical facts.

So I pointed out that, as we do not deny historical facts, there’s no room for asking if our denial of historical facts is backed on scientific research. If you had asked if our conviction about historical facts was based on scientific research, the answer would have been what I told you above: yes, it is, just like the established notion of any other historical event.

Got it now, smart-ass?

>“How much colder would that be if it was reapplied immediately, and how would that affect its >combustion properties, if at all?”

>Firstly you would have the, not inconsiderable, problem of collecting it in sufficient quantities.

>Your scenario: Bodies placed on wood pyre, gasoline applied, fire ignited, bodies reach a certain >temperature at which point all human fat pours steadily from the body and is collected. >Collection can be done within a timescale that precludes any significant cooling of the fat, fat >reapplied, massive combustion, end.

What influence, again, would a “significant cooling of the fat” have on its combustion properties?

>My scenario: Bodies placed on wooden pyre, gasoline applied, fire ignited, bodies reach a >certain temperature at which point bodies begin to combust, skin ruptures, fat hisses and spits >from some of the more corpulent corpses, some of the fat ignites, some runs out, other bodies >burn more slowly, short of placing the corpses in a giant steel griddle, no method of fat >collection proves possible.

What’s the last part of your scenario (“no method of fat collection proves possible”) based on?

>Found any giant steel frying pans in Auschwitz lately have they?

Why would such frying pans still have to be around, and why should they have been indispensable in the first place?

>Secondly, if you are going to reapply it immediately there is scant advantage in removing it in >the first place.

“No, it would be you that isn't quite grasping that the technical detail of whether fat was poured over bodies stands *subordinate* to the larger body of evidence concerning the historical fact of mass cremation at Birkenau”

A subordinate claim that you have, nevertheless, chosen to defend. Now you seem to be beginning to regret it.

“a) the witnesses who so testify exaggerated, so you should dismiss this part of their evidence (normal court-room practice)”

I’m questioning a claim about the holocaust on a blog that purports to be dedicated to supporting holocaust claims, not asking about premature ejaculation, Nicky.

“ You seem to be labouring under the delusion that we're here to 'defend' something in its entirety”

“What part of genocide do you not understand”, if you are going to pick and choose which parts of genocide you are going to defend, maybe you should change your header?

Really? Then how come you ignored half of my previous comment?

Mainly irrelevance. You are desperately trying to make this a dispute hinging on an expert understanding of physics and thermodynamics (despite providing zero evidence that you posses any such expertise), when, in fact, the whole claim can be analysed by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of combustion.

“Saying it ain't so don't make it so”

And saying it is so don’t make it so, that’s why we are discussing the practicalities of the matter.

"Au contraire, if the laws of thermodynamics interacting with human anatomy militated against the outflow of human fat from a pile of corpses, then I'd dismiss the evidence too. But these laws, combined with the human anatomy, do militate strongly *towards* human fat flowing out of the pile of bodies, in considerable quantities"

And do the laws of thermodynamics indicate that a significant percentage of hot molten fat, flowing into a blazing pyre will pass through that fire without igniting? I’m trying to keep a straight face.

“try sandwiching a herd of pigs between layers of wood in a very long trench”

So the bodies were burnt in pits and the fat was collected in trenches. This would mean that the trenches would have to be deeper than the pit. You would require either a pit with a series of deep trenches running off at right angles to the pit, or a pit with a trench running its entire length dug into the bottom, exiting in a sunken collection area. Anyone found pits like these?

“my presumption would be that most of the fat would pool on the body”

How convenient! Are you sure that it wouldn’t just rapidly flow from the extremely hot surface of the body?

“Weeell, that would be up to the aim of the person ladling the fat back on”

And their aim would depend upon how hot the fire was and how long the ladles were (very long apparently). Anyone found any of these ladles? They'd have to have a bloody good aim to pour fat onto a body sandwiched between layers of blazing wood

You still haven’t demonstrated how a fire can be hot enough to melt human fat but still cool enough to allow a significant percentage to flow through it for collection? Nor have you explained why, if the fat (as you claim) was simply ladled back onto the fire, a significant percentage of that fat did not simply flow through the fire and collect in the trenches again.

Fat dripping and weeping into a fire from a body flows through the fire but fat poured in ladlefuls doesn’t?

Fat wrapped in skin and contained in muscle flows easily out into trenches, but fat ladled onto the surface of a corpse “pools”?

“For someone who came here looking for a fight to begin with, you're remarkably wussy about taking your verbal lumps. Might I suggest you fuck off somewhere else that is more to your genteel tastes?”

No they aren't. Most of them are based on historical record and expert consensus.

You didn't even get off first base with that post and I've addressed all of your other points already. You are only marginally more intelligent than Sergey At least Nicky knows how to construct an argument, even if his argument is wrong, it at least bears some resemblance to what an argument should look like.

"A subordinate claim that you have, nevertheless, chosen to defend. Now you seem to be beginning to regret it."

You think so? I'm having quite a bit of fun here.

"Ahhhh! Nicky prepares an escape hatch."

I note with amusement that you never opted for any of the possibilities, or suggested your own in a coherent fashion. So where's your escape hatch, asshole? Where's your coherent evaluation of whe issue at hand in relation to the wider issue of the open-air cremations?

"I didn’t make a claim, I asked a question about a holocaust claim."

Ever heard of leading questions, dickhead? Yours was a classic example.

"Tauber and Mueller? I thought it was my claim?"

Your claim is that you don't believe this aspect of the evidence about open-air cremations. The fact that you aren't even aware who the witnesses are shows your claim is little more than hot air recycled from denier spew.

"I’m questioning a claim about the holocaust on a blog that purports to be dedicated to supporting holocaust claims, not asking about premature ejaculation, Nicky."

Where does it say that we are dedicated to supporting claims about the Holocaust? Quite the contrary, the blog is dedicated to *debunking* the idiotic claims of Holocaust deniers. That is a quite different thing.

"“What part of genocide do you not understand”, if you are going to pick and choose which parts of genocide you are going to defend, maybe you should change your header?"

Why should we? It's only a tagline.

And there you go with that word 'defend' again. That's not what we do. We COUNTERattack. The sequence is very simple, but evidently not simple enough for a moron like you to understand.

a) Over sixty years of research has been carried out on the Holocaust by historians, lawyers and other scientists. Research is published in 1000s of books. In formal terms, burden of proof is carried. Burden of proof is now on anyone wishing to revise this history.

b) Holocaust deniers attack the results of sixty years of research. Burden of proof shifts to them. They make the extraordinary claims, they have to provide the extraordinary evidence to back up their claims.

c) finally, we attack Holocaust deniers - most of all, for not carrying their burden of proof properly.

Is that clear, asshole?

"Mainly irrelevance. You are desperately trying to make this a dispute hinging on an expert understanding of physics and thermodynamics (despite providing zero evidence that you posses any such expertise), when, in fact, the whole claim can be analysed by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of combustion."

You don't need an *expert* understanding of science to grasp the principles at stake here. You do, however, need to factor in a) the scale of the event, b) human physiology, c) the thermodynamics of combustion.

"And saying it is so don’t make it so, that’s why we are discussing the practicalities of the matter."

Nope, this is what has happened so far

a) asshole comes along and declares the story to be physically impossible

b) other people point out at some length what was involved, and explain the variables, which asshole isn't aware of and never mentions

c) asshole ignores the variables and fixates on the supposed 'impossibility'.

"And do the laws of thermodynamics indicate that a significant percentage of hot molten fat, flowing into a blazing pyre will pass through that fire without igniting? I’m trying to keep a straight face."

Perhaps you should learn what the smoke, flash and fire points of fats are. And when it is that fat turns to liquid.

Let me see now, that bacon, it starts oozing fat at a relatively low heat, yes? Whereas fat has a flash and fire point which is somewhat higher. That is the thermodynamic gap which allows fat to escape a piece of cooking meat, and which allows fat to escape a body being burnt on a pyre or in a pit.

You say, but meat on a barbecue wouldn't do this, the coals/charcoal/wood would ignite the fat? Actually, if you've barbecued, you'll know that at first, the dripping fat hisses. Later on, it ignites and sears the steaks, burgers and sausages from underneath. Moreover, the quantity of heating fuel is considerably greater on a barbecue proportionate to the 1kg of meat being grilled. You agree that barbecues tend to run on quite a large amount of charcoal, which has a higher BTU than wood, yes?

So, first, multiply by circa 40-50,000kg. Then, reduce the amount of heating fuel - wood and petrol - to considerably less than is applied to cook a steak on a barbecue.

"So the bodies were burnt in pits and the fat was collected in trenches. This would mean that the trenches would have to be deeper than the pit. You would require either a pit with a series of deep trenches running off at right angles to the pit, or a pit with a trench running its entire length dug into the bottom, exiting in a sunken collection area. Anyone found pits like these?"

The sites are well-known. In the 1960s, they were bored for human remains and these were indeed found. Why anyone should expect the exact layout to be reconstructible by archaeology is ridiculous.

"How convenient! Are you sure that it wouldn’t just rapidly flow from the extremely hot surface of the body?"

Clearly, you don't do too much cooking. How big is the surface area of not only 1 corpse, but a whole heap of corpses stacked side by side?

"And their aim would depend upon how hot the fire was and how long the ladles were (very long apparently). Anyone found any of these ladles? They'd have to have a bloody good aim to pour fat onto a body sandwiched between layers of blazing wood"

If there was wood on top, then let me see now, we have wood heating up under the influence of its own burning as well as petrol, to which someone then adds fat.

"You still haven’t demonstrated how a fire can be hot enough to melt human fat but still cool enough to allow a significant percentage to flow through it for collection?"

You really, really don't do much cooking, do you?

"Nor have you explained why, if the fat (as you claim) was simply ladled back onto the fire, a significant percentage of that fat did not simply flow through the fire and collect in the trenches again."

Because it would flow in all directions, thus including *downwards*. Because the surface area of the pile of bodies - heard of surface area? - was something like 1.5m by several tens of metres.

Why don't you pour a bottle of cold cooking oil over your dining room table and get back to me with how much oil spills off the sides? And remember that your dining room table doesn't necessarily have gaps in it as a pile of bodies would.

"Fat dripping and weeping into a fire from a body flows through the fire but fat poured in ladlefuls doesn’t?"

Do you think they achieved a uniform heat throughout the length and breadth of the wood-pyre? I don't.

"Fat wrapped in skin and contained in muscle flows easily out into trenches, but fat ladled onto the surface of a corpse “pools”?"

Who said anything about 'easily'? I already said that even if 99% of the fat *didn't* escape, you have a hell of a lot of fat that *did* escape, which equates to the addition of many gallons of petrol in energy to the fire.

“Actually, if you've barbecued, you'll know that at first, the dripping fat hisses. Later on, it ignites and sears the steaks, burgers and sausages from underneath”

Actually, Nicky, what “hisses” as it drips from your steaks and sausages is mainly water.The water evaporates. The temperature of the coals rise and then the fat begins to melt. The fat ignites on contact with the coals. I’ll give a full appraisal of your post later.

But let's see how our idiot interloper does when accounting for the whereabouts of all the fat.

1000 bodies, yes? How much fat per body, on average? The average was recorded in the 1960s as 15.3kg. But these are 1940s bodies who haven't gone well-fed. And children, though you should be warned that children have a higher proportion of fat.

So let's see, that's somewhere between 5 and 10 metric *tons* of fat inside the bodies of the 1000 people being mass-cremated. 1000 x 5-10kg = 5 to 10 metric tons, right?

Now let's arrange the bodies. At the bottom is a layer of wood. Then a layer of bodies. Then another layer of wood. Then another layer of bodies. And so on, until you get to the top layer, onto which petrol is poured.

The entire sandwich is 2m deep by 1.5-2m wide by tens of metres long. Has our asshole visitor visualised what the pile looks like yet?

The petrol will, of course, sink into the pile of wood and flesh, and will ignite easily. So now we have the beginnings of a fire.

Question: is it likely that the petrol spread evenly and instantaneously through the body/wood/body/wood sandwich, to a depth of several metres, and evenly and instantaneously set body/wood/body/wood on fire?

Answer: of course it fucking isn't. The uppermost layers will catch the largest quantity of petrol as the petrol descends through the 2m deep sandwich. The bottom-most layers will catch some petrol, but not nearly as much as the top-most layers. NOR do the bottom-most layers have as much access to fire-stoking oxygen as the top-most layers.

Question: so what happens next?

Answer: the fire spreads downwards, chomping its way through body/wood/body/wood layers. At the surface, where there is oxygen to fuel the fire. the fire will be hottest. Heat will be reflected onto the sides by the walls of the pit, the fire on the sides at the top will catch the oxygen while the fire on the sides at the bottom will have less access to oxygen.

Therefore, the bottom-most layers of wood/body/wood cannot be guaranteed to burn at the same rate as the topmost layers. But they can be guaranteed to become charcoaled and barbecued under the impact of the heat spreading downwards with the petrol.

Result: in the first stages of the fire, there are layers of bodies cooking at different rates.

Result: bodies 1.5m higher in the sandwich can well have had their body fat close to combustion or actually combusting, while bodies 1.5m lower in the sandwich can well be heated up enough to have the fat melt, but not enough to have the fat combust.

Next step: body fat in liquid form emerges from the bottom of the pile, is run-off into channels at the *bottom* of the pit, and scooped back up to be poured on top, along with petrol and wood, as fuel to fan the fire to a greater heat.

Final phase: a mass of body fat inside the pile has combusted, the fire has become self-sustaining, cremation occurs.

>No they aren't. Most of them are based on historical record and expert consensus.

Why, and what are the historical record and expert consensus based on, smart-ass?

>You didn't even get off first base with that post and I've addressed all of your other points >already.

Very poorly so, if at all. And your hollow claims of victory are characteristic of loonies like yourself. Do you hope that people read your stuff alone, or why do you write such shit?

>You are only marginally more intelligent than Sergey

Thanks, that’s a compliment, though I don’t think it’s accurate. And I also don’t return it, for you come across as one of those dumb-as-sand frustrates who think they are absolutely brilliant and that the cruel world, because it’s Jew-dominated or whatever, has failed to acknowledge their brilliance.

>At least Nicky knows how to >construct an argument, even if >his argument is wrong, it at >least bears some resemblance to >what an argument should look >like.

What do we have here, an intellectual chihuahua trying to take a leak?

“Result: bodies 1.5m higher in the sandwich can well have had their body fat close to combustion or actually combusting, while bodies 1.5m lower in the sandwich can well be heated up enough to have the fat melt, but not enough to have the fat combust”

Your are confusing combustion due to extreme heat with combustion due to exposure to sparks and flame. If you put a pot of lard on your cooker and turn up the heat, the fat will have to achieve an extremely high temperature before it ignites. If however you raise the temperature just enough to liquefy the fat and then drop burning matches and hot embers into the fat, the fat will burst into flames without having to be super hot. It’s a bit like this, if you put a paper taper onto a hot electric ring the taper will take some time to burst into flame, the paper will blacken, it will smoulder, it will burn red at the edges, after some time it will burst into flame. If you take the same paper taper and stick it into a burning gas ring, it will immediately burst into flame. So you see Nicky the temperature at the base of the fire is irrelevant. The melted fat would be ignited by hot embers falling from the wooden fire above and flames licking down the side of the fire. If you think that a flammable liquid can only be ignited by heating to flash point, why do you think that it is illegal to smoke in petrol stations?

"That is to say, anyone who has ever cooked meat on a stove, in an oven or on a barbecue knows that it is possible to heat meat to beyond 200 degrees Celsius without it automatically catching fire, and that fat WILL run out of the meat in large quantities."

The process of cooking meat in an oven or on a barbecue seems to me opposite to the process of open air incineration. When one cooks meat, for example delicious shaslik, the method is to NOT let the flames touch the meat. Although any fat that runs out into the burning coals immediately catches fire.

In order to succesfully collect fat from bodies one would need to implement a "roasting" system - where by flames were prevent from touching the body and also a metal or ceramic collecting tray that could drain dripping fat was between the flames and the body.

This would automatically mean a very inefficient cremation system.

A normal pyre where the fat dripped into the pyre beneath the carcase would not be able to collect fat.

"The petrol will, of course, sink into the pile of wood and flesh, and will ignite easily. So now we have the beginnings of a fire. "

So if we can collect highly combustible fat why cant we collect equally combustible petrol?

What is this miracle pyre arrangement that allows one flammable liquid to be collected and the other to serve as accelerant?

The shameful hypocrisy of the Zionist entity knows no bounds. How long, dear God, before it is removed from the page of time?

I’ll try and “splain” this real simple for you Nicky.It’s not about flash point it is about kindling point. If you heat lard in a pan in a pot on a stove the lard will have to be raised to a temperature of 215C before the lard will ignite. In a pan the lard can escape from the source of heat by convection. The heated fat rises before it can reach flash point and is replaced by cooler fat from the top of the pan. If you drop hot embers or matches into a pan of melted lard it will burst into flame despite the fact that the oil in then pan is well below flash point. This is because the oil cannot escape from the heat source. The hot lard around the burning match or ember rapidly rises to flash point and ignites and in turn raises the temperature of the fat around it which also ignites, this causes a chain reaction which quickly ignites the entire fuel supply. In a trench 1.5m deep x 1.5-2m wide x tens of metres long filled with blazing petrol soaked logs it is virtually impossible for melting fat to avoid ignition through exposure to sparks, flames and burning embers. The general distribution of temperature within the trench is irrelevant.

Ignition: apparatus for igniting a combustible mixture.

Flash point: the lowest temperature at which the vapour of a combustible liquid can be made to ignite momentarily in air.

Exactly! Which is why the general temperature of the various parts of the trench is irrelevant to ignition.

“Only if you can _prove_ that it *must* have been the case that the entire pyre could have been set on fire simultaneously”

Melting human fat would necessitate combustion of your fuel supply. Combustion of your fuel supply would generate the sparks flames and embers that would guarantee the ignition of that fat.

“Given the potential quantity of fat that could fly off, I'd say it was quite likely”

Hmmm! Magical “flying” fat now! The fat would neither “fly” nor “flow”. It would soak into the timbers and earth beneath the bodies.

“Your entire hypothesis is based on the idea that the pyre was surrounded by a moat of fire virtually instantly”

No it isn’t. It’s based on the idea that local ignition agents would set fire to molten fat and that if any small residues of fat escaped immediate ignition they would soak into the timbers and earth beneath the bodies where, they would ignite later as the fire consumed the lower levels of the pyre.

“Oh yeah, one of the witnesses spoke of 2500 bodies at a time. So that's 15 tons of fat you've got to keep inside and automatically exposed to flame”

That’s fifteen tons of molten fat that you’ve got to prevent from coming into contact with a single spark, ember or flame in a sunken blazing pyre. ROFL!

"Exactly! Which is why the general temperature of the various parts of the trench is irrelevant to ignition."

Ummm... wrong. Top can be on fire, bottom need not be. Indeed, the logic of the channels is that fat would melt from layers of bodies that were not yet in *full* contact with the force of the blaze, and run off.

"Melting human fat would necessitate combustion of your fuel supply."

Nope, not uniformly through all layers.

I would bet that if you arranged 2500 sausages (low-fat, of course) into a pit, with a proportionate amount of wood between them, and then poured a proportionate amount of petrol onto the top, that the bottom of the pile would not be alight instantly, that the sausages at the bottom would spit out fat in all directions.

"Combustion of your fuel supply would generate the sparks flames and embers that would guarantee the ignition of that fat."

Again, please prove that the wood at the bottom of the pile would automatically combust because some petrol had been poured on to the top, many layers above.

"Hmmm! Magical “flying” fat now! The fat would neither “fly” nor “flow”. It would soak into the timbers and earth beneath the bodies."

Oh come now. You're seriously telling me that a certain amount of fat does not fly when heated? Have you never cleaned an oven after a fry-up?

Just to remind you, we're talking many tons of fat here.

"No it isn’t. It’s based on the idea that local ignition agents would set fire to molten fat and that if any small residues of fat escaped immediate ignition they would soak into the timbers and earth beneath the bodies where, they would ignite later as the fire consumed the lower levels of the pyre."

Most of the liquid fat would indeed soak into the timbers. I already explained that many times over. But can you honestly say that 100% of the fat would be so consumed? If even 1% of the fat leaked out of the pile, then we're talking many, many gallons.

"That’s fifteen tons of molten fat that you’ve got to prevent from coming into contact with a single spark, ember or flame in a sunken blazing pyre. ROFL!"

Once again, please *prove* that the entire pyre, tens of metres long by 1.5-2m deep by 1.5-2m wide, would all be on fire, subjected to sparks or close to embers simultaneously.

“Once again, please *prove* that the entire pyre, tens of metres long by 1.5-2m deep by 1.5-2m wide, would all be on fire, subjected to sparks or close to embers simultaneously”

So while some areas of the pyre were busy burning away fat blazing and hissing, other areas lie cold and dormant or smoulder at low temperature.How do the cool areas of the pyre generate enough heat to melt the fat you are trying to collect, Nicky? After all as you have so carefully explained heat generally rises, so the extent of the conflagration necessary to melt the fat of the bodies beneath it, would certainly be sufficient to create sparks and embers which would ignite that molten fat. The fat wouldn’t melt in areas that weren’t on fire Nicholas. Ninety nine percent of your argument has disappeared up your arse Nicky, I’d advise you to suck the remaining turtles head back in yourself before its rammed back for you.

"So while some areas of the pyre were busy burning away fat blazing and hissing, other areas lie cold and dormant or smoulder at low temperature."

Don't you love it when these idiots go from one extreme to the next?

First he says that everything would be on fire. Now he tries to argue that 'other areas lie cold', or imagines that this is what my argument is.

Cold, no. Less hot, yes. Unexposed to direct flame, yes. If there were hypothetically 10 layers (wood/body/wood), then one can easily have the 10th topmost layer be blazing hot (many hundreds of degrees celsius), the 6th layer very hot, and the 1st layer at the bottom simply hot.

"How do the cool areas of the pyre generate enough heat to melt the fat you are trying to collect, Nicky?"

Because there aren't any 'cool areas'. There's a raging fire at the top of the pile, generating intense heat, melting the fat in the next layer below and then combusting it, in a chain reaction. This cannot be assumed to have happened instantaneously.

"After all as you have so carefully explained heat generally rises,"

Yeees, and what's it like if you were to walk underneath a ceiling that is on fire? Is it cold? I think not.

At the bottom of the pile, there would be less oxygen - but only at first! The topmost layers would have the greatest surface area exposed to the air, and thus burn faster. Sooner or later, the fire would be intense enough to have cremated the topmost layers of bodies and wood, turning the flesh and wood into ash.

The actual incineration would thus proceed 'downwards', in that the topmost layer would be burnt away to ash first. Now you tell me how quickly the fire progresses down through the pile.

"so the extent of the conflagration necessary to melt the fat of the bodies beneath it,"

Later on, the topmost layers would have burnt off to ash, and the bottom-most layers would be on fire.

"would certainly be sufficient to create sparks and embers which would ignite that molten fat.

Once again, please prove that this would necessarily be so. Go take some sausages, branches and fuel, and run a little experiment. Send me the pictures.

"The fat wouldn’t melt in areas that weren’t on fire Nicholas."

Um, yes it would, since the melting point of fat is quite low. If you have a fire that is reaching several hundred degrees on the surface, and several layers of material below it, they will heat up. Wood burns, but it does not generally burn instantaneously, does it? Human bodies burn, but they don't turn to a crisp instantaneously, do they?

"Ninety nine percent of your argument has disappeared up your arse Nicky, I’d advise you to suck the remaining turtles head back in yourself before its rammed back for you."

On the contrary, all you can do is repeat yourself over and over and over again. You've shown no understanding of the situation, you've not offered a model whereby you can *demonstrate* that 100%, without fail, of the fat would be automatically exposed to sufficient flame that it would for-sure combust.

These mass cremations took hours. Do you honestly expect me to believe that the fires were constant throughout a pile of wood and bodies weighing in total, anything up to a couple of hundred tons?

There are a number of errors in your analysis as it pertains to human fat and its potential for combustion in the circumstances under discussion. You are assuming that the critical factor in the release of fat is the attainment of melt point temperature. You are failing to take into account that the skin of the cadaver restrains this fat. Considerable suppuration of the skin would be required for egress of liquid fat. If we use your example of the sausage, you will notice that fat weeps and seeps slowly from a cooking sausage and will only flow in noticeable quantities when very high temperatures (temperatures way above melting point) cause rupturing of the skin. Try filling the bottom of your grill pan with wood shavings and then cook some sausages. The fuel below will ignite long before your sausages release any significant amount of fat. You have also, in your crude estimation failed to make any distinction between subcutaneous fat and visceral fat. How hot would the surrounding fire have to be to melt visceral fat deposits?

Can you tell me how the petrol was poured on to the burning fire please Nicky?

In Portugal we have these nice mini-grills made of clay. They consist of a clay tub about 20 centimeters long, ten centimeters wide and 8 to 10 cms high, with horizontal bars of clay on top. Into the tub you pour alcohol, and on top of the bars you put a chouriço, which is a sausage that looks like this: http://www.amaralsmarket.com/cgi-local/store/Html/Images/chourico.jpg You light the alcohol and let the chouriço grill, nice for a pick-nick if handled with due care. What I have seen happen more than once is, the fat from the chouriço drops into the tub and mixes there with the burning alcohol. When the alcohol is spent, the tub has liquid fat at the bottom, some but not all of which may be burning, but not for long. Eventually the fire will go out and the liquid fat will start turning into grease as the tub cools, which you should clean out with a newspaper before packing up your pick-nick stuff. Maybe this is of interest to the entertaining discussion at hand.

>Can you tell me how the petrol was poured on to the burning fire please Nicky?

Rudolf Höss also mentions fat pouring in his autobiography. And he does it incidentally in the context of discussing the mentality of the Sonderkommando Jews, which I think lends additional credibility to his account. From the excerpt of Höss’s autobiography transcribed under http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=251.topic :

That’s a lovely digression about grilling sausages with alcohol in a clay barbecue. Do you do any outdoor cooking involving sandwiching sausages between layers of solid fuel? If you do your observations may even be relevant to this thread topic.

Sirgay

“Grow one, maybe... The only thing I could grow which might increase our mutual understanding would be “more stupid”.

>That’s a lovely digression about grilling sausages with alcohol in a clay barbecue. Do you do >any outdoor cooking involving sandwiching sausages between layers of solid fuel? If you do >your observations may even be relevant to this thread topic.

Assuming our great intellectual can explain why relevance of the phenomenon observed to this thread topic should require «sandwiching sausages between layers of solid fuel», which I don’t think he can.

Another point is that the Auschwitz death toll is 1.5 million, which is just over one-sixth of the Holocaust death bill.

So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the other camps, or the other extermination measures.

The death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau was about 1 million, thereof about 900,000 Jews, according to recent research by Gerlach and Aly.

>So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures.

I don’t think our friend wants to "disprove" the Nazi genocide of the Jews. He just wants to show what a great intellectual he is.

The death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau was about 1 million, thereof about 900,000 Jews, according to recent research by Gerlach and Aly.

>So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures.

I don’t think our friend wants to "disprove" the Nazi genocide of the Jews. He just wants to show what a great intellectual he is.

> Actually, as you noted, his purpose is not only to show off an erudition he neither earned nor deserved, but to hurl derision and contempt at people who defend the truth so as to advance his own worthless cause and to invest his life and existence with importance and attention that he does not deserve, either.

But as you also noted, he's admitted to not being "intelligent and articulate" enough for dialogue, and his only real weapons are "derision and contempt."

In other words, he's trying very, very, very hard to be the middle school bullies who probably threw his schoolbags down the stairs, smacked him on the back of the head, and calling him unpleasant names, in front of the other kids and the girls upon whom he had unrelieved crushes...and maybe the boys, too...

My guess is that those bullies were probably Indian, Pakistani, African, and Asian kids in his Glasgow comprehensive, and he is still determined to show those bullies that "white power" can rule the school and the day.

“So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures”

Ahhhh! Finally the holocaust fundamentalists invoke their escape clause. After posting several thousand words badly defending improbable allegations they turn around and claim that the whole subject is irrelevant. Bravo gentlemen!

“to advance his own worthless cause and to invest his life and existence with importance and attention that he does not deserve”

A perfect example of Freudian projection, and also a perfect description of holocaust fundamentalists; bravo once more.

“In other words, he's trying very, very, very hard to be the middle school bullies who probably threw his schoolbags down the stairs, smacked him on the back of the head, and calling him unpleasant names, in front of the other kids and the girls upon whom he had unrelieved crushes...and maybe the boys, too”

The crafting of a psychological mythos for understanding dissent has its genesis in Communist Russia (the state inspired by Marx and Engles), where dissidents were diagnosed as mentally ill.

“and maybe the boys, too”

Voxceltica is a male homosexual; surely the most puerile ad hom know to mankind. You are really showing your class Lippman.

“My guess is that those bullies were probably Indian, Pakistani, African, and Asian kids in his Glasgow comprehensive”

I’m glad you acknowledge the extensive anti-White racism engendered by subscription to the multicultural philosophy of Jewish intellectual Horace Kallen. The worst example of this racism was the protracted torture, mutilation and burning alive of fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald, a murder that strangely didn’t get the same national media attention as far less savage murders of Blacks like Anthony Walker and Steven Lawrence for some reason.

>“So denier quibbling over the grisly mechanics of the Auschwitz gas chamber and crematoria >do not disprove the Holocaust...they have nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos, the >other camps, or the other extermination measures”

>Ahhhh! Finally the holocaust fundamentalists invoke their escape clause. After posting several >thousand words badly defending improbable allegations they turn around and claim that the >whole subject is irrelevant. Bravo gentlemen!

Wishful thinking is also thinking, apparently much the only thinking that the great intellectual is capable of. The thought that David might just have wanted to remind him of the futility of his haggling about details of the body disposal process at Auschwitz-Birkenau apparently didn’t occur to this showpiece of white supremacist intellectual brilliance. And it apparently takes that intellectual brilliance to see a contradiction between exposing the evidentiary and/or argumentative fallacies of his haggling and pointing out the irrelevance thereof.

>I’m glad you acknowledge the extensive anti-White racism engendered by subscription to the >multicultural philosophy of Jewish intellectual Horace Kallen. The worst example of this racism >was the protracted torture, mutilation and burning alive of fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald, a >murder that strangely didn’t get the same national media attention as far less savage murders >of Blacks like Anthony Walker and Steven Lawrence for some reason.

No comment except one: please give us more such "what they do nobody cares about, what we do everybody howls about" - statements, Vox. They are so instructive of that oh-so-brilliant mind’s deplorable contents that they are worth collecting.

Ahhh! So I’ve been spanked? We’ve arrived at the last sorry act in the pathetic cabaret that is holocaust fundamentalism, the hollow declaration of victory.

Okay, you are claiming that I’ve been spanked, considering the amount of keyboard time several of you have spent in your clumsy attempts at rebuttal; this “spanking” must be giving you some satisfaction. I challenge you to post this thread in it’s entirety on Stormfront (I’m neither a fan or a reader), The Birdman’s website or some other organ of your enemies, to show what a “spanking” I’ve had. Be prepared to be laughed out off the blogosphere, until then STFU.

>Ahhh! So I’ve been spanked? We’ve arrived at the last sorry act in the pathetic cabaret that is >holocaust fundamentalism, the hollow declaration of victory.

Hollow declarations of victory are the trademark of white supremacist or other conspiraloons. Sergey’s was just a plain statement of fact.

>Okay, you are claiming that I’ve been spanked,

No, we’re concluding on this.

>considering the amount of keyboard time >several of you have spent in your clumsy attempts >at rebuttal;

No, considering the poverty of your evidence (if any) and arguments.

>this “spanking” must be giving you some satisfaction.

No, the satisfaction comes from the instructive showpiece of white supremacist intellectual manure you kindly provided. We like to show our readers what you people are all about, and you cooperated splendidly.

>I challenge you to post this thread in it’s entirety on Stormfront (I’m neither a fan or a >reader), The Birdman’s website or some other organ of your enemies, to show what a >“spanking” I’ve had. Be prepared to be laughed out off the blogosphere, until then STFU.

Yeah, I’m sure the Birdbrain or Stormfront troglodytes (see some samples under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/meet-celtic-patriots-best-friend.html ) will be laughing their heads off and thereby providing further showpieces of phenomena we like to show our readers. Whether they’ll even understand what they are supposed to be laughing about is another matter.

Talk about challenges, here’s one for you: meet me on the forum for Real Open Debate on the Holocaust (RODOH), which you find under http://p102.ezboard.com/brodohforumYou won’t be alone there, trust me. While you may not necessarily find fellow white supremacists, so-called "Revisionists" there are enough. The forum’s boss, Scott Smith, is one as well. This forum was created in response to the discussion forum of the inaptly named "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" (http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=2), aka the Cesspit, where great intellectuals of your kind slap each other on the back and any critic sees his posts mysteriously disappear as soon as he starts kicking "Revisionist" ass.

Ah, before I forget it:

>Voxceltica is a male homosexual; surely the most puerile ad hom know to mankind. You are >really showing your class Lippman.

How about winning the fight you’re in now? If you are so confident that you have proved that fat can be drained from humans in the way described by your eyewitnesses, proclaim your victory on the websites of your rivals. I’ve posted my arguments in a hostile environment, don’t you have the balls to do the same?

>How about winning the fight you’re in now? If you are so confident that you have proved that >fat can be drained from humans in the way described by your eyewitnesses, proclaim your >victory on the websites of your rivals.

I have no problem with that. I used to post on the CODOH forum until censored and eventually banned, and will continue posting there if someone can convince the moderator "Hannover" to give me an account. But tell me, how would the reaction of our "rivals" change the fact that you ran out of arguments here? Is their judgment supposed to be any standard or something?

>I’ve posted my arguments in a hostile environment, don’t you have the balls to do the same?

As I told you, I have no problem with posting in a "Revisionist" environment and have done so before. But you don’t even seem to have the balls to meet me in a neutral environment (RODOH). As you also didn’t have the balls to reveal your identity as requested to do after getting personal, that doesn’t surprise me at all, however.

More hot air. The only real argument in this thread came from Nick Terry who gave up. You were just the afterbirth. You are claiming that you won this argument. I’d have thought that you would be proud to post news of your victory in the camp of your sworn enemies. Do it or concede like a man.

… is what you’re offering, as so often already throughout our brief acquaintance.

Vox>The only real argument in this thread came from Nick Terry who gave up.

Wishful thinking again? You seem to be big at it.

>You were just the afterbirth. You are claiming that you won this argument.

Does the "you" refer to me, or to me and my fellow contributors? I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m claiming credit for Nick’s performance, to which I only contributed some ideas. As to claiming that whoever "you" is won this argument, what other conclusions are we supposed to draw from your failure to respond to the last part of my post of September 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM and to my post of September 23, 2006 8:39:20 PM, among others? That you just got bored? Sorry, Vox, but you haven’t come across like someone who would owe a response if he had one.

>I’d have thought that you would be proud to post news of your victory in the camp of your >sworn enemies.

Well, maybe you misunderstood the purpose of this blog, then. But of course we have no problem in taking this discussion to "Hannover"’s Cesspit, each of whose members is also welcome to engage any of us either here or at the RODOH open discussion forum (unfortunately for RODOH, few of "Hannover"’s acolytes will ever venture out of the Führerbunker, and "Hannover" is too much a coward to do that anyway). Have you already asked "Hannover" whether he would allow me to post on his forum?

>Do it or concede like a man.

Your reasoning is somewhat strange, my friend. How would our not taking this discussion to the Cesspit change the apparent fact that you ran out of arguments here? Please explain that. And keep us informed about your efforts to obtain my (re-)admission to the CODOH Cesspit, will you?

Talk about being a man, have you already opened your RODOH account?

And when can we expect you to reveal the Christian name that is behind this "Sirgay" ad hominem smear?

“I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m claiming credit for Nick’s performance”

I don’t blame you.

“your failure to respond to the last part of my post of September 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM and to my post of September 23, 2006 8:39:20 PM, among others”

Hit me with your most brilliant point then Muelenkamp.

“That you just got bored?”

I was quite happily debating with NT but unfortunately he seemed to get bored. You on the other hand are rather boring. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that you were banned from CODOH because of your obvious brilliance. Have you ever considered that it might have been because you are an abusive pedant who makes bad arguments? For most sane people endless discussion of the holocaust is boring. Endless discussion of the holocaust with you takes it to a whole new level.

“And when can we expect you to reveal the Christian name that is behind this "Sirgay" ad hominem smear?”

So the macho Neanderthal didn’t like the suggestion that he might be gay? Is homophobia another one of his charming traits? What does my identity have to do with the validity of my arguments?

Hiding behind a hasty counter-challenge wont get you off the hook sunshine, link the thread or button your lip.

>“I would strongly resent the insinuation that I’m claiming credit for Nick’s performance”

>I don’t blame you.

Your irrelevant opinion about Nick’s arguments aside, this means that you would claim credit for someone else’s performance. Which doesn’t surprise me at all.

>“your failure to respond to the last part of my post of September 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM and to >my post of September 23, 2006 8:39:20 PM, among others”

>Hit me with your most brilliant point then Muelenkamp.

Why should I repeat points you haven’t responded to? Just go looking for them on this thread.

>“That you just got bored?”

>I was quite happily debating with NT but unfortunately he seemed to get bored. You on the >other hand are rather boring.

As I said before, that’s a lame excuse not at all compatible with someone whose heated discussion with Nick didn’t exactly make him look like he would owe a response unless he didn’t have one.

>You seem to be labouring under the delusion that you were banned from CODOH because of >your obvious brilliance.

No, the only one here who believes in his "obvious brilliance" is the great intellectual. I was censored and eventually banned simply because "Revisionists" were having trouble responding to the evidence I showed and the arguments I made, and I am by no means the only one to whom this has happened. Just go to the "Memory Hole" section of the RODOH forum: http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18 .

Or consider this comment by one of our readers on the thread http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/sticky-chicken-challenge.html#c115872847774002413 :

«Someone already commented to denierbud: Let's have a comprehensive discussion at either the Holocaust Controversies website or the RODOH discussion forum. You choose.

His response: (my comments in brackets)I'll choose:

forum.codoh.com

You know you won't get deleted there. (Bwahahahahahahaha) Lokulotes and Sobe can post there too. (At least until they start kicking my ass -- then their posts will mysteriously disappear)

Anyone who takes a look at the ones proposed by Cortagravatas and the one proposed by me, can see that Codoh forum is the best one. (At least, if you want to avoid any SERIOUS debate or critisism) No name calling, orderly. (And Deniers are guaranteed to win) See you there.

Further comment -- who is this guy kidding? He can't address the evidence, and he's going to hide over at CODOH to boot. What intellecutal honesty.»

As you can see, censorship on the CODOH forum is old news. I don’t consider myself any more brilliant than anyone else who has experienced it. I don’t have to be.

>Have you ever considered that it might have been because you are an abusive pedant who >makes bad arguments?

No, already because bad arguments would allow the "Revisionist" side to display its "obvious brilliance" in response. Besides, what kind of debate would that be were posts are censored because the moderator considers them to contain "bad arguments"?

>For most sane people endless discussion of the holocaust is boring.

Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatics like yourself can't keep their trap shut.

>Endless discussion of the holocaust with you takes it to a whole new level.

The length of a discussion depends entirely on you, my friend. If you’re tired of discussing, just piss off.

>“And when can we expect you to reveal the Christian name that is behind this "Sirgay" ad >hominem smear?”

>So the macho Neanderthal didn’t like the suggestion that he might be gay? Is homophobia >another one of his charming traits? What does my identity have to do with the validity of my >arguments?

With the validity of your arguments, nothing. With the cowardice you display by throwing ad hominem manure from behind the safety of an alias, everything.

>Hiding behind a hasty counter-challenge wont get you off the hook sunshine, link the thread or >button your lip.

I don’t need to hide behind anything, already because the one of us two who could link this thread to our Cesspit "rivals" is you, not me. I would love to do so if I could, and if you can convince "Hannover" to let me in it is the first thing I will do.

Ah, but you just gave me an idea, my good man: http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm50.showMessage?topicID=281.topic

“Yep, that’s why I only engage in it when fanatics like yourself can't keep their trap shut”

Your “trap” has just been open for the full duration of the longest least informative post of this thread. You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.

Now take your tongue out of Nick Terry’s arse for a moment and tell me again how this molten fat was collected from these pyres?

“No, you tell me why you think there would have been no way to collect fat emanating from these pyres”

Quite simple really, as I’ve already explained to Nick Terry who gave up the ghost some time ago now, If you can’t understand my previous posts give me your snail mail address and I’ll write it out in crayon for you.

Your single contribution to the debate was some inane and irrelevant observation about alcohol stoves.

“What’s your Christian name again, chickenshit?”

No it’s not chickenshit, guess again nimrod.

“>You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the >greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.” Me

”Same as above.” You

Takes one to know one? How appropriate that the wit of the playground follows the wisdom of the lunatic asylum.

>“No, you tell me why you think there would have been no way to collect fat emanating from >these pyres”

>Quite simple really, as I’ve already explained to Nick Terry who gave up the ghost some time >ago now, If you can’t understand my previous posts give me your snail mail address and I’ll >write it out in crayon for you.

Trying to run away from repeating your claim, bigmouth? If it’s the one about the collecting trench or trenches needing to have a certain shape or position in relation to the incineration trench, forget about it unless you can prove that shaping or positioning the collection trench or trenches in such way would have been impossible. Same if you wish to continue claiming that no liquid fat would have reached the bottom of the incineration trench to be collected from there, which you also cannot demonstrate. If you have any new idea, however, feel free to share it with us.

>Your single contribution to the debate was some inane and irrelevant observation about alcohol >stoves.

Assuming our great intellectual can explain what’s supposed to be “inane and irrelevant” about my observation, which shows that fire hot enough to suppurate the skin of a Portuguese chouriço nevertheless does not completely consume the fat dripping into the tub full of burning alcohol.

>“What’s your Christian name again, chickenshit?”

>No it’s not chickenshit, guess again nimrod.

It’s chickenshit as long as don’t show the balls to tell me your Christian name, buddy.

“>You have a gift bordering on genius for compressing the least amount of thought into the >greatest number of words, Muelenkamp.” Me

>”Same as above.” You

>Takes one to know one?

The “same as above” referred to my previous comment: «In your irrelevant opinion, that may be so. Is the great intellectual's hysteria getting out of control?»

>How appropriate that the wit of the playground follows the wisdom of the lunatic asylum.

About which you seem to know a lot. Have you been temporarily released, or are you writing from there?

Here are a couple of points made by Nick Terry which are at least (unlike your nonsense) worthy of discussion.

“Result: bodies 1.5m higher in the sandwich can well have had their body fat close to combustion or actually combusting, while bodies 1.5m lower in the sandwich can well be heated up enough to have the fat melt, but not enough to have the fat combust”

It doesn’t matter how cool the lower portion of the trench is. The fat is melted by burning wood, the burning wood generates embers and sparks. Falling embers or sparks would ignite any leaking fat. If the bodies are not close enough to the fire for embers and sparks to ignite leaking combustibles they are not close enough for fat to melt. If the temperature in the middle portion of the trench was only just hot enough to melt (but not ignite) the human fat and the temperature of the trench got progressively lower as it descends, the fat wouldn’t flow anywhere, it would either congeal or achieve a level of viscosity that would slow any flow to an insignificant trickle.

”Even if 99% of the fat remained inside the bodies, or ran off and could not be caught, but 1% could be, you're talking about many tens of pounds of fat. Fat has a BTU of 20,000 per pound, which uis close to that of petrol. So even if only 20lb could be captured, this is the equivalent of several gallons of petrol”

For the reason given above the amount of fat flowing from the trench is likely to be a fraction of the 20lb postulated by Terry but even if we assume that Terry is right and that 20lbs of fat could be collected we have to remember that that mere 20lb of fat is being applied to a massive trench in order to burn hundreds and hundreds of bodies. With regard to the demands of the operation 20lb of fat (more like 3lb) is insignificant. To put this into perspective the proverbial “bucket of lard” (yes I know that pig fat isn't exactly the same as human fat) sold for domestic use often contained 50lb, 20lb of fat on a fire this big doesn’t cut it.

You are only left with a default position in which you claim that it was this level of inefficiency that led to the abandonment of this practice, even if you use this get out of jail free option, you are still left with a situation in which the events described by eyewitnesses are impossible.

>Here are a couple of points made by Nick Terry which are at least (unlike your nonsense) >worthy of discussion.

What “nonsense” exactly? The observation suggesting that either a not-(yet)-so-hot fire can get the fat flowing out of the bodies or even a very hot fire will not necessarily consume all fat? And why would that be nonsense?

>“Result: bodies 1.5m higher in the sandwich can well have had their body fat close to >combustion or actually combusting, while bodies 1.5m lower in the sandwich can well be >heated up enough to have the fat melt, but not enough to have the fat combust”

>It doesn’t matter how cool the lower portion of the trench is. The fat is melted by burning >wood, the burning wood generates embers and sparks. Falling embers or sparks would ignite >any leaking fat.

Assuming that a) human fat reacts like the lard in your examples (it may have higher moisture content and hence not be exactly comparable) and b) embers and sparks would necessarily be falling when and where the fat was flowing out of the bodies in the lower layers. If the reason for ignition due to embers or sparks in your lard pan example is that the oil cannot escape from the heat source, then this might also not necessarily apply to fat flowing at the bottom of the incineration pit.

>If the bodies are not close enough to the fire for embers and sparks to ignite leaking >combustibles they are not close enough for fat to melt.

Why would that be so?

>If the temperature in the middle portion of the trench was only just hot enough to melt (but not >ignite) the human fat and the temperature of the trench got progressively lower as it descends, >the fat wouldn’t flow anywhere,

You mean that the temperature of the middle portion got progressively lower as the fire moved downwards? This would be indifferent insofar as the molten fat would have left the middle portion and flown to the bottom of the trench before this happened, by the time the middle portion had reached ignition temperature. Ignition temperature in the middle portion in turn would mean pre-ignition temperature in the lower portion, thus precluding the phenomenon you will claim hereafter.

>it would either congeal or achieve a level of viscosity that would slow any flow to an >insignificant trickle.

Despite the heat’s moving closer to it as the fire progressed downwards from the middle portion of the trench? Unlikely.

>”Even if 99% of the fat remained inside the bodies, or ran off and could not be caught, but 1% >could be, you're talking about many tens of pounds of fat. Fat has a BTU of 20,000 per pound, >which uis close to that of petrol. So even if only 20lb could be captured, this is the equivalent of >several gallons of petrol”

>For the reason given above the amount of fat flowing from the trench is likely to be a fraction >of the 20lb postulated by Terry

Why, because some embers and sparks might fall on the fat at the bottom and ignite it, assuming it reacted like molten lard in a pan? I’d say that ignited part would go with the “ran off and could not be caught” – part in Nick’s scenario, and my assumption is as substantiated or unsubstantiated as yours, so who loses is the fellow saddled with the burden of proof, which is ou. A 99 % loss is a worst case scenario anyway, for if only one out of, say, ten layers of bodies reached fat melting temperature before fat ignition temperature, chances are that at least a considerable portion of the fat in the bodies in that layer would have flown to the bottom before that layer heated up to ignition temperature.

>but even if we assume that Terry is right and that 20lbs of fat could be collected we have to >remember that that mere 20lb of fat is being applied to a massive trench in order to burn >hundreds and hundreds of bodies.

It’s not being applied to burn, as Nick explained. It’s only being applied to help the burning, raise the fire’s temperature more quickly.

>With regard to the demands of the operation 20lb of fat (more like 3lb)

That’s a mere speculation, which you have nothing to show for. I am also just speculating, for sure, but the burden of proof is on you as the one who claimed that this process would be impossible.

>is insignificant. To put this into perspective the proverbial “bucket of lard” (yes I know that pig >fat isn't exactly the same as human fat)

Is lard the same as pig fat in its natural state?

>sold for domestic use often contained 50lb, 20lb of fat on a fire this big doesn’t cut it.

Why not? Is the relationship between fat mass and body mass so much different from the relationship in an oven when you’re pouring some of a turkey’s fat over the turkey?

>You are only left with a default position in which you claim that it was this level of inefficiency >that led to the abandonment of this practice,

No, there’s no need for that. 20 to 50 lb of fat scooped off the burning of a thousand bodies would still be a contribution to that burning worth the effort of gathering the fat.

>even if you use this get out of jail free option, you are still left with a situation in which the >events described by eyewitnesses are impossible.

You haven’t demonstrated any impossibility. The most you could claim would be that this procedure wasn’t worth while, and even that you haven’t demonstrated.

Chickenvox is like the Black Knight in excelsis. How many limbs does he have left? Not many.

By the way, I have better things to do with my time than go over old ground when an erstwhile debating partner can't even begin to offer any explanations for evidence presented, except to repeat himself over and over again.

"The fat is melted by burning wood, the burning wood generates embers and sparks. Falling embers or sparks would ignite any leaking fat."

Ah, the endlessly reiterated embers and sparks.

"If the bodies are not close enough to the fire for embers and sparks to ignite leaking combustibles they are not close enough for fat to melt."

Our poor Black Knight is clearly incapable of offering anything other than dichotomies that might as well be strawmen. Either instant incineration from embers and sparks, or it is not hot enough.

Which is nonsense, as Roberto's example of fat liquidising despite alcohol being on fire to cook a sausage for a picnic illustrates quite well in microcosm.

Clearly, our poor Black Knight lacks the imagination to appreciate that there is a continuum at work here, not his hot/cold binary logic.

"If the temperature in the middle portion of the trench was only just hot enough to melt (but not ignite) the human fat and the temperature of the trench got progressively lower as it descends, the fat wouldn’t flow anywhere, it would either congeal or achieve a level of viscosity that would slow any flow to an insignificant trickle."

Bwahaha! Now our intrepid Black Knight resorts to fat melting, then congealing, in a desperate attempt to keep the fat from escaping. This doesn't even vaguely conform to real-world cooking experiences on stoves or barbecues, and certainly is complete wishful thinking in this situation.

It all depends on the speed of the fire, doesn't it, oh Black Knight? Sometimes you want the fire to rip through the entire pile, sometimes you pretend it just inched its way along.

"For the reason given above the amount of fat flowing from the trench is likely to be a fraction of the 20lb postulated by Terry but even if we assume that Terry is right and that 20lbs of fat could be collected we have to remember that that mere 20lb of fat is being applied to a massive trench in order to burn hundreds and hundreds of bodies. With regard to the demands of the operation 20lb of fat (more like 3lb) is insignificant. To put this into perspective the proverbial “bucket of lard” (yes I know that pig fat isn't exactly the same as human fat) sold for domestic use often contained 50lb, 20lb of fat on a fire this big doesn’t cut it."

Once again our poor Black Knight misses the point. The fat was added back onto the fire to stoke it up further. That means, as an accelerant. That means, at a specific stage of the process, after which such stoking was, relatively speaking, unnecessary. One could use petrol for this, but petrol was not in plentiful supply, so if one could substitute even a tiny fraction by using several gallons of fat, then it was worth having the channel dug just so, and worth having a slave labourer make a few scoops and pour the fat back into the fire. Has our poor Black Knight ever ladled 20lbs of liquid before? It is not something that can be done in one go.

Before our poor Black Knight fixates on the speculative figure of 20lbs, based on a much smaller-scale mass incineration than has been testified to by the witnesses, let us remind him of the numbers again.

"You are only left with a default position in which you claim that it was this level of inefficiency that led to the abandonment of this practice,"

Who said anything about the abandonment of the practice? If you were actually familiar with the testimonial evidence on this subject you would know that this technique was tried in 1944, initially as an experiment organised by crematoria chief Otto Moll. It worked well enough that it was worth doing so that witnesses then remembered it.

"even if you use this get out of jail free option,"

We have no need.

"you are still left with a situation in which the events described by eyewitnesses are impossible."

Oh dear, more argumentum ad ignorantium. Black Knight is still yelping despite the absolute lack of legs to his argument. Would anyone else care to have a go persuading Black Knight of his follies?

> Not if you’re interested in bringing the fire to the highest temperature within the shortest >possible time. >

>During a cremation it is not the goal to bring the fire to "highest temperature within the >shortest time". This would be counter productive.

>The reason: The protein structure is changed in a way that the corpses do not burn to ashes >any more.

>A cremation specialist

By the name of "Claudia", I presume. If I remember correctly, the "thermic barrier", where said change of the protein structure will occur during oven cremation, is around 1300º centigrade or something. If you think the fire in open air incineration reached such temperatures, feel free to demonstrate it. Also explain why what applies to cremation in an oven, which was where you presumably got your "protein structure" thing from, would necessarily apply to incineration in an open fire as well.